Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 975 (PNJ)

Sanjay Mittal @ Vishwas Gupta v. State Of Haryana

2000-08-24

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. The petitioner whose application for bail in anticipation of arrest has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, has approached this Court for the same relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. F.I.R. No. 312 dated 3.6.2000 has been registered under Section 304 I.P.C. at Police Station, Ambala Cantt. on the statement of Navin Chand. As per the allegations, Panna Lal (the deceased in this case) resided in the Hindu Sabha Bhavan, Ambala Cantt and on the date of occurrence at about 10 p.m., petitioner-Sanjay Mittal alias Vishwas Gupta son of Muni Lal came in his car into the Bhavan to park the car. When Panna Lal informed the petitioner that there was a function and, therefore, he should not park the car, the petitioner, in a rage, said that he will park the car there. When the complainant, Panna Lal and others also requested the petitioner to take away the car and park the same outside, the petitioner, in a fit of rage, caught hold of Panna Lal, gave him 2/3 slaps on his face and gave a push with the force on which Panna Lal fell down and died. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the F.I.R. has been registered under Section 304 IPC, the same is not made out against the petitioner. He contends that the post-mortem examination did not disclose any mark of external injury and the scalp was also found to be normal without any fracture. However, he points out that 200 ml. of blood was found in the cranial cavity and on opening of the scull, clotted blood was found in the occipital region. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the doctor opined that death was due to internal brain injury, but had reserved his final opinion since he had sent the heart for Pathological test to the P.G.I. M.I.C., Rohtak. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the Pathologist has also give his opinion that the deceased was a chronic ischaemic. He also points out that the doctor has also now given the opinion that the cause of death in this case is due to internal brain injury which has led to the heart arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the Pathologist has also give his opinion that the deceased was a chronic ischaemic. He also points out that the doctor has also now given the opinion that the cause of death in this case is due to internal brain injury which has led to the heart arrest. He also points out that the doctor has opined that in the arrest of the heart his chronic in ischaemic changes in heart and aorta may have had some contribution. 4. Pointing out these factors, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not armed, he had no previous enmity with the deceased and had also no motive to cause the death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the opinion of the doctor, the pathological report etc. and the allegations made that the petitioner, in a fit or rage, had allegedly given 2/3 slaps on the face and had pushed the deceased, all go to show that the alleged offence does not fall under section 302 I.P.C. but only under Section 323 I.P.C. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, inasmuch the petitioner cannot be attributed with knowledge that the petitioners alleged action would cause death of the deceased. 5. But the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the doctors opinion shows that death had resulted due to internal brain injury and this coupled with the facts that the deceased was aged 70 years, that the petitioner, who became furious on his being asked to remove the car, had given 2/3 slaps and pushed the deceased forcefully, go to show that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 304 I.P.C. 6. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view of that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 7. The petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 7. The petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. If the association of the petitioner with the investigation is necessary, the investigation officer shall issue notice giving sufficient time to the petitioner to join investigation, and on such notice, the petitioner shall join investigation. The petitioner shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.